According to Kevin Tok (in playing the game), two bases are placed on opposite corners of the map.

Three lanes branch out from the bases, and armies for both sides will spawn along these lanes at
intervals. The Sentinels are the red Night Elf based team located on the bottom left, and their opponents
are the Scourge, the green Undead team located on the top right of the map. Both sides are vying to
destroy the „Ancient‟ of the other; the World Tree is the Sentinel Ancient, and the Frozen Throne is the
Scourge Ancient. Based on Tok‟s study, he explains the concept, the gameplay, the elements of the
game, and its objective. Punit Lodaya, a game expert, describes the base consisting of towers and unit-
producing ancients.

The units (referred to as „creeps‟ in games) are produced automatically on a regular basis, and they go
to have a direct clash with the opponents‟ units, and the first fight usually starts at the center of the
map. In addition, players get to control a special unit called Heroes, who are stronger than normal units
and have special abilities. Each team can have a maximum of 5 players. Lodaya provided a more detailed
description of the game, its elements, and how many players are involved. Another interesting study
about playing the game is from Michael Waldbridge. He regarded playing DOTA as an „underground
revolution‟. He said that “DOTA is likely the most popular and most discussed free, non-supported game
mod in the world, judging by the numbers.” He said that like any other game, the concept is simple and
its strategy. “The strategy focuses on levelling, getting hero kills, pushing the enemy‟s base with allied
creeps and defending against the enemies.”

Click to see the full text

“DOTA is a delight to all who play it; it’s surprisingly addictive and even pastiche, mixing the highs and
lows of gaming and gaming culture. DOTA’s quirks, governments, outlaws, and innovation show us that
its’ much easier to renovate for the masses when the masses are involved. The vision of one leader alone
is required, but never sufficient.”

-Michael Waldbridge, 2008.

According to JV Aquino, playing the game serves as a platform for youth to communicate. Teenagers who
don‟t know initially each other can easily become friends through playing the game, because it provides
a common topic for the teenagers to talk about. They can discuss the heroes, the items, and the tactics.
Nair Neha argues that “It has been widely accepted that in playing the game, the team wins rather the
individuals. Competitive DOTA is a completely different world in comparison to casual play, to a more
extreme unlike less complex games. Because of this, it is much more interesting to watch. Teams always
come up with innovative strategies and sometimes pull off amazing moves in matches that people have
never even thought was possible. To the DOTA Community, that is spectator value, the complexity.” Neha
gives a critical analysis of how DOTA has been evolving for several years. He shows that playing the game
requires not only great teamwork and communication, but also creativeness and critical thinking on
every aspect of the game.

He also noted that “DOTA is an evolving game because it is constantly being reworked and it changes
constantly.”These studies show concrete evidences why the game is very popular in our country. Aside
from being a strategy game, it is the game for the masses. The people are not only playing the game, but
also they are helping the developers to improve the game. The final output of the game comes from the
creative and innovative minds of computer gamers all over the world; that is its very big difference
among any other games. Another factor why this game is become popular is the fact that it‟s free to
play; you do not have to pay anything except if you are renting a unit in computer shops.

Also, by playing the game you can gain more friends to know and get along to develop social skills and
self-confidence. If you want to know more about the game, please see Appendix 1. Jack Rodriguez wrote
about the 25 signs of DOTA addiction. Here are some: 1. Whenever you lose a Dota game, you want to
grab your weak team mate and punch him in the face. 2. Your left thumb is always on the alt button
whatever you‟re doing at your computer. Maybe you want to check your facebook friend’s hp bar. 3.
When you get amazed at anything you call it ‘imba’. ‘He scored 99 at his math test, imba!„.You also call
things that annoy you, ‘imba‟. „That guy is imba, he is damn fat’.

The first factor why it attracts the youth is the type of game involved. Filipino gamers love strategy and
action games compared to board and mini games. It has a very different gameplay compared among
other games. Also, it is a multiplayer game; people can play with others up to 10 persons per game. It
involves teamwork and cooperation to win the game. We know that it is very fun to play team games like
basketball, volleyball and others; even back then when we are a child. Another difference of DOTA to
other games is the production of computer-controlled creeps. The game does not focus only to heroes
clashing, but also on how you control your lane by utilizing the creeps. The second is that it the game
employs high quality visual effects. Aside from it has good graphics, the heroes controlled by the players
have special abilities, either a special attack or a spell.

Heroes have their unique abilities or skills, which make playing the game fair and square. Heroes‟ spells
are visually attracting, such as lightning attacks by the hero Zeus, fire attacks by Lina Inverse, ice attacks
by Lich and poisonous attacks from Venomancer. Not only that, if you saw the ultimate skills like
Macropyre of Twin-Headed Dragon, Epicenter of Sand King, Freezing Field of Crystal Maiden and Sanity‟s
Eclipse of Obsidian Destroyer, you will surely enjoy using those skills that can make your desktop lag for a
while. Some heroes‟ abilities and items create an aura that surrounds them. (The complete list of heroes
are in Appendix 2.)These are the reasons why some players want to play DOTA; they want to escape in
the real world they are living. Lastly, playing the game is free, except for the computer rental. Every
computer shops here in the country have this game; it is easy to install and is portable. “Everyone love
free, right? PC rentals here in our country is going cheaper and cheaper due to the exponential growth of
the computer shops.” (Rudolf, Ryan. 2009)

Due to curiosity of Filipinos, many people are attracted and want to involve in playing the game because
of its popularity. Many people testify to their friends that it is worth playing for. Others are even taught
their friends and promoted the game. Based on my observation, it is easy to learn, it is fun to play, and it
is user-friendly. Even kids 10 years and above knows how to play the game. These are the factors why
DOTA stands out among other games. PLAYING DOTA IN AN INFORMAL SETTING laying DOTA has never
been boring when it comes to playing with friends. Sometimes, this serves as the opportunity to bond
with your friends. Playing the game does not only develop mental alertness, body coordination and
strategy planning; it also develops your interpersonal skills and it fosters teamwork, leadership and
camaraderie to be able to win the game. A normal round of playing time ranges from 40 to 50 minutes,
depending on the strategy of the team.

If one team is good and the other is not, the game can last for only 30 minutes or so. If both teams have
good strategies, the game can last for more than 1 hour. But because playing the game for just one round
does not satisfies most of the gamers, they start another round again until they finish 5-10 rounds. If you
encounter gamers like that, it is a sign of their addiction to that game. Sometimes, gamers are playing
the game late at night up to 1am or 2am because they want to develop strategies and enhance their
playing skills. Before Warcraft III and DOTA was released, computer shops were already built here in the
country for the purpose of providing internet connection and offer services like printing, CD burning, and
hardware repair. Computer rentals range from Php15 to Php30 per hour. The shops are still few way back
year 2003. But after the release of the game and many people are involved in playing DOTA, the demand
for computers is greatly increased.

It led to the growing industry of computer shops. As the demand continues to grow, people built more
computer shops and business competition existed. That is the reason why the number of computer
shops in the country is growing geometrically, and it opens almost every month. T P That is how the
computer shop culture in the country has been started. Now, computer rentals range from Php10 to
Php20 per hour, and even cheaper if you will avail promos. The competition between computer shops is
very tight. This follows the transformation of computer shops into gaming shops. People are now going
into computer shops just to play DOTA. The original objective of computer shops has been very
misleading nowadays since they are now used for playing DOTA, not for accessing the internet.
Computer shops are also instruments to gather DOTA players to show their skills there. Teams are also
formed inside the computer shops since they enjoy playing with each other.

The purpose of forming the team is to battle other teams in their community. Playing DOTA in an
informal setting has never been fun without trash-talking. So what does this mean? “trash talk. Noun:
disparaging, taunting, or boastful comments especially between opponents trying to intimidate each
other. – trash–talk (verb) – trash–talk•er (noun). ” (Merriam-Webster dictionary) “(also trash talking)
noun informal: insulting or boastful speech intended to demoralize, intimidate, or humiliate someone,
especially an opponent in an athletic contest: -he heard more trash talk from the Giants before the game
than during the game -stop the trash talking and stop the violence verb [no object] (trash-talk)use
insulting or boastful speech intended to demoralize: -their players do not swear or tussle or trash-talk (as
adjective trash-talking) -the worst trash-talking team they had ever encountered Derivatives trash talker
(also trash-talker) noun” (Oxford Dictionary) That‟s the exact meaning of the word “trash talk” and its
usage in the Philippines. Opponents try to insult or boast the other team.

There are two means of trash talking: either verbally or through the game itself. It can be also in
humorous manner (ex. “Hoy patalo ka naman eh, hahaha.”) It is also often used with hyperbole, a
figurative language that evokes strong feelings (e.g. “Natutulog ka ba sa pansitan?”). It is fun to play the
game with trash talking. Some also uses foul and strong words. For us Filipinos, trash talking in a
humorous spirit creates a good atmosphere that is conducive for players in playing the game; there is an
interaction between the two teams not only on their computer monitors, but also on communicating
with each other. Generally, Filipinos used trash talk to make fun with each other. DOTA players also trash
talk through the game itself. The game has chat feature that can send your message to your allies or to
all of the players. Players usually use them to communicate with their teammates secretly, such that no
other opponents can hear or read the message itself.

It is also used to discuss what the players are going to do; to continue farming or attack an opponent.
Some players have also strategies on what message they will send. If a player sends “no top” to his allies,
it means that there is no enemy on the top of the map; the enemy probably returns to his base to buy
items or it goes to another lane to help his allies attack another enemy. When a hero controlled by a
player dies, it has certain time to respawn; players use this time to say sorry to his teammates or to
blame his teammates of lack of support. Being a Filipino, we tend to blame other people because they
failed to do a certain task. Generally, the chat feature of DOTA has good features and should be used
wisely. Pinoy DOTA Lingo is also used during the game. The players utter phrases and jargons that acts as
a command on what they are going to do next. The most popular word in DOTA lingo is “imba”, short for
“imbalanced”. They use this word to describe a powerful and skilful player.

Some people say, “imba naman si Mineski!” which suggests that Mineski is very powerful and he
dominated the game. Another popular jargon is “G.G.”, originated from Starcraft and short for “good
game”. This word has many uses: if a team wins/loses, if a hero dies/pawned another hero. It is the
universal word used in different situations. “NG” means nice game; ”GLHF” means “good luck, have fun”.
“GLHF” is often used in tournaments. “TP” means “town portal”, an item that is used to teleport to
another place near allies. “B” means back, which means to move back and do not fight the enemies.
“Push” means to progress forward, in order to battle the opponents. “Farm” means to kill the enemies‟
creeps, to earn money and experience. “KS” means “kill steal”, used when a player steals a kill from
another player by attacking the opponent last before it dies.

The word “awts!” is used when a player fails to succeed in his task; the Tagalog parody of the Engish
word “ouch!” DOTA lingo is not only limited to events, but also in the items used in the game. For
example, Mekanism is abbreviated as “Meka”, “BKB” for Black King Bar, and “DR” for Divine Rapier. Some
Filipinos are fond of gambling and betting players in the world of sports, so as playing DOTA. Some teams
must dominate other teams in order for them to earn money. Usually, “pustahan” in playing DOTA
involves 2-5 players per team. The money at stake ranges from Php100 to Php5000. Not only who are
playing the game is involved, but also other people watching the match and betting a player whom they
think that will win. There are also some flaws in playing DOTA. Due to its high quality graphics, low-end
computers might lag during the game, especially when the heroes cast their most powerful spells (can be
executed by typing a single key in the keyboard) and can be the cause of interruption of the game.

Another hard thing in DOTA is clicking an item in the inventory before using it, while battling with
enemies that require great focus. Good thing, DOTA now comes with DOTA Toolkit that allows user to
customize the keyboard settings to use items in the inventory and also help a player cast a spell
efficiently. Using the toolkit answered the needs of the Filipinos; DOTA becomes easier to play, so it
became more popular. PLAYING DOTA IN PHILIPPINE TOURNAMENTS ecause of the big potential of the
game, some people sponsor DOTA tournaments here in the country. They want to encourage people to
play the game, and they also want to popularize it. Almost all of the competitions are held in public
places like shopping malls or in private places like tournament rooms. Others do tournaments through
Garena, which connects online gamers.

The usual registration fee ranges from Php100 to Php1,000 per team, and cash prizes ranges from
Php2,000 to Php20,000 with freebies depending on how many teams are participating. The most
popular event handler of DOTA tournaments is the Philippine Garena CyberCafe Alliance (GCA).
Competitions are done through Garena itself. Any participating team must play in computer
shops/internet cafès that is a member of GCA. Maximum of 2 teams are allowed per GCA Shop. The
team must submit a registration form including their GCA Shop Name, ISP/Broadband provider of Shop
and Bandwidth, Team Name (which is optional), Players‟ names (5 Players + 2 Substitutes), Garena User
Names, and their User I.D. (UID). The registration fee per team is Php700. All players will receive freebies
upon registering. The top team will get Php2,000 per player and Php10,000 for their shop; for the total
amount of Php20,000.

The 1st runner-up will be awarded Php1,000 per player and Php5,000 for their shop; for the total
amount of Php10,000. The 2nd and 3rd runners up will yield Php500 per player and Php2,500 for their
shop; for the total amount of Php5,000. The competition had a single elimination system; meaning you
will be knocked-out of the competition if you lost a game. After the single elimination, the final 4 teams
will have their championship match that will be the best of 3 series. Games are now held in the
tournament rooms, but over the Garena client. A winner is declared if they destroyed the Frozen
Throne / World Tree, or if the opponent surrenders. If the game lasts for 100 minutes, the organizer shall
stop the game and decide what team will win based on their performance. The match will begin with a
coin toss or roll -100. The one who wins the coin toss or with the higher roll can pick either (a)
Sentinel/Scourge side of the map or (b) First or Second hero selection from drafting.

Irresponsibility of the teams will not be tolerated (such as missing player, late game, etc.) During the
game, proper attitude of both teams must be observed. Severe trash talking or verbal assault will cause
the team‟s loss of the game or disqualification from the tournament. There will be no item and hero
restrictions. Backdooring is not allowed. This means that players are not allowed to attack an enemy
building without any creep wave. A warning or game loss is the sanction if backdooring happens.
Deliberately trapping the opponent to trees is not allowed. The game must not be paused after the
players selected their hero. Creep blocking is not allowed; meaning you cannot cast spells to slow your
allied creeps or block the way. Creep pulling is allowed; meaning you can pull the neutral creeps to the
lane so that the allied creeps will attack them that benefit the hero.

Bug exploitation is also not allowed. If the team incurred 3 warnings, the opponent will be awarded as
the winner; the team will be disqualified from the tournament if they incurred 6 warnings. Any
competitor found to have intentionally disconnected from the game will give that competitor‟s team a
loss B for that match. Game saving is also done periodically. The referees‟ decision will always be final.
GENDER EXCLUSIVITY OF PLAYING DOTA ajority of the gamers in the Philippines are male; because most
of the computer games here are strategic. Male Filipinos seek adventures and challenges on games what
they are playing. Since the release of DOTA, players have gathered in computer shops; most of them are
male. But we do not limit playing DOTA for male only. Since it is war-themed, there are rare conditions
where you can see a female playing it. But we Filipinos accept that all people are accepted play the
game. Even if it is dominated by male, there is no gender exclusivity in playing DOTA.

home about archive

Johannes Fromme is a Professor for Media Research in Educational Science at the University of
Magdeburg, Germany.

Contact information:

Prof. Dr. Johannes Fromme, Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Institut für

Erziehungswissenschaft, Postfach 4120, D-39016 Magdeburg, Germany.

Author homepage

Computer Games as a Part of Children's Culture

by Johannes Fromme

1 The cultural and pedagogical relevance of electronic games

Interactive video and computer games belong to the new multimedia culture that is based on the digital
computer technology. These games have become increasingly popular in the past 20 to 25 years,
especially among young people. In the beginning they were mainly played by youth and young adults
who were enthusiastic about computers. During the early nineties, however, video and computer games
became a matter-of-course in the everyday life of young people, including children. There is not one
single explanation for this development. Probably a number of different reasons can be alleged. From an
economic perspective one might argue that children and youth have become important target groups for
many industries, e.g. media, fashion, music. Young people are believed to act as "driving forces" in and
for new markets and products, and their purchasing power is noteworthy. The computer game industry
obviously has been quite successful in attracting these young customers. From a technical perspective
one could point out that starting and playing electronic games has become easier in the past two
decades. You don't need need specific computer knowledge to use a Game Boy or a television-linked
console - it is just plug and play. [1] In addition, the introduction of Microsoft Windows has made
personal computers (PCs) - to some degree - more user friendly to operate. But in order to explain the
broad success of video and computer games it is not sufficient to take into account what happened on
the part of the media. It is crucial to see what happened on the part of the players, too. What made and
makes video and computer games fascinating for them? How do they use and value different games? To
what extent are the changing media environments of children connected to more general social
developments? Questions like these are characteristic for scientific approaches which are interested in
the social and cultural relevance of media uses. They go beyond media-centered approaches and try to
understand how computer games are integrated into the lives of the children and young people
(Livingstone, d'Haenens & Hasebrink, 2001).
This cultural and social significance of electronic games, I propose, also is pedagogically relevant,
because any educational or teaching effort which aims at mediating so-called "media competency,"
computer literacy, or ICT skills is preceded by informal and non-formal learning processes of children
within their "computer gaming culture." About 20 years ago Patricia M. Greenfield discussed possible
effects of new media (Greenfield, 1984). She was sceptical about common fears that new media were
bad educators, because they "taught" children and young people things like violent behaviour. As far as I
see Greenfield was one of the first scientists who drew attention to the possible positive effects of
watching television or playing video games. [2] She addressed new media as cultural artifacts which
demand complex cognitive skills from the people who use them, and these skills and the related
knowledge that come from using them are not obtained in instructional contexts like schools, but are
acquired informally (Greenfield, 1984). Since 1984 the situation obviously has changed in one respect:
schools have begun to use computers and teach pupils computer skills. But at the same time informal
experiences with computer technology have become more common for children and young people.
Most pupils, therefore, have learned about computers before teachers or other educators begin
instruction; sometimes the pupils' skills even surpass those of the teachers.

A better knowledge about informal learning processes and their background seems to be necessary in
order to avoid a "clash of media cultures." This metaphoric notion implies the following: teachers,
parents, and others engaged in education and tuition are members of a generation which - during its
primary socialization - has grown up in a different media culture and has different media experiences
than the young generation of today. These (informal) experiences do not only influence their private
values and attitudes towards new media, but they also have an impact on their educational concepts and
actions. However, this coherence is usually not being reflected. In other words, parents and educators
tend to address the media cultures of children and youth from their own generational perspectives
which they represent as an implicit norm in educational - and political - discourses (Schäeffer, 1998;
Wittpoth, 1999; Fromme, 2000; Fromme, 2001). This implies that "new media" - that is media which
someone did not grow up with - are often looked at with distrust and scepticism. In addition, members
of the older generation on the whole still seem to represent what Max Weber called a "protestant ethic"
(1985) which implies a rationalized lifestyle and a specific form of self control. Parents and teachers, for
example, usually want children to use a computer for more than playing computer games and if they
accept the computer, it is mostly because they want and expect it to lead to more serious types of PC-
related activities like writing texts or using educational or learning software (Leu, 1993).

If we look at empirical data we have to state that for children and youth computer games "are the most
frequently used interactive media" (Beentjes et al., 2001, 95). Without going into too many details, I
want to refer to three studies which support this statement. In a European comparative study carried out
in 1997 and 1998 the number of minutes per day spent on various media were considered. Three
different interactive media were included here: the internet, the PC (not for games) and electronic
games. "Electronic games" was used as a collective notion for computer games (PC games) and video
games (television-linked consoles and portable video game systems). On average children and young
people between 6 and 16 in Europe spent 32 minutes per day playing electronic games, 17 minutes per
day using PC applications (not games) and 5 minutes per day using the internet. To give a comparison:
136 minutes per day were devoted to watching television). [3] The figures varied between the different
countries (see fig. 1), but in all countries (with one exception) more time was spent on video and
computer games than on the more 'serious' types of computer use.

Figure 1

Note. Data from Beentjes et al., 2001: 96

We have similar findings in other studies which concentrated on the use of the PC only (and did not
consider consoles or portable video game systems). A recent German study on the media use of children
(Feierabend & Klingler, 2001) for example shows that playing computer games is the most prominent PC-
related activity of children between 6 and 13.[4] In this study 60 percent of the children said that they
used a computer at least "rarely" or "sometimes" in their leisure time. These children were defined as PC
users (n=740). Figure 2 shows the computer activities of these PC users. It tells us how many children (in
percent) reported they practised the named different activities at least once a week. On average "playing
computer games alone" is the most popular activity. The figures vary, but this statement applies for boys
as well as for girls, and it applies for all age groups of this sample (6 to 7 years, 8 to 9 years, 10 to 11
years and 12 to 13 years). In addition, it is quite customary to play computer games together with others,
especially for the boys (see Figure 2). This gives a first indication to relevant gender differences with
regard to the way computer games are used and integrated into the children's social and cultural
activities.

Figure 2

Note. Data from Feierabend & Klingler, 2001: 352

The third study I want to refer to was carried out by the same research association in Germany [5] , but it
addressed a different age group: 12 to 19 year olds. Again young adults were asked to report which of
the named PC activities they practised regularly. The results (see Figure 3) indicate another gender
difference: In this age group playing computer games is the most popular activity for boys, but not for
girls. The same difference does not exist in the the 6 to 13 age group where playing computer games
(alone) is the most popular kind of PC use for both boys and girls (Figure 2). This might lead to the
following hypotheses: Girls lose some interest in computer games when they get older and turn towards
the more "serious" types of PC use. Boys, on the other hand, mainly use the PC as a "game machine"
throughout their childhood and teenage years. But as the findings come from two different samples and
not from a longitudinal study we cannot take these as granted statements, yet.

Figure 3

Note. Data from Feierabend & Klingler, 2000: 26

2 Research on the "computer gaming cultures" of children

Research on the media use of children is still rare. Most studies can be characterized as youth studies. To
some degree this statement applies to the social sciences in general: When research work is done to
investigate the social and cultural lives of young people it mostly concentrates on youth and not on
children. A common argument for this focus on youth and adolescence is a methodological one. To
include children would raise questions like: Do children have sufficient reading abilities to fill in a written
questionnaire? Are their cognitive abilities sufficient to understand the questions of an interviewer? Are
their linguistic (verbal) abilities adequate to express what they want to say? On the whole it seems
doubtful that results from empirical studies with children could correspond to scientific standards like
objectivity, reliability and validity. At first glance these methodological questions appear to be plausible.
However, some of the underlying assumptions have become subject to criticism, the core of which being
the construction of childhood in terms of deficiency (Prout & James, 1990; Shantz & Hartup, 1992;
Zinnecker, 1996; Honig, Leu & Nissen, 1996). The critics claimed that a paradigmatic shift was necessary:
childhood should no longer be defined as a developmental stage but as something in and of itself. This
implies that children cannot be reduced to "not yet grown-ups" but they have to be seen and respected
as subjects in their own right who develop their own and unique cultural milieus. In the 1990s
considerations like that have been prominent especially in discussions of sociologists and other social
scientists. One effect was the founding of a new section called "Sociology of Childhood" in the American
Sociological Association (ASA) in 1993. [6] Another effect was a new interest in research on childhood
matters.

How does this different view on children and childhood apply to the above-mentioned methodological
questions? First of all, research on children and childhood has been reshaped in an attempt to approach
and understand a different culture. Therefore the main question is not whether the children are or are
not able to correspond to scientific (or other) standards of adult researchers, but whether or not
methods (i.e. forms of communication) can be developed which secure a mutual understanding.
Children live in a cultural milieu which adult researchers have to accept and take seriously. In this milieu
the children are the experts, not the scientists.

This was one of the theoretical and methodological starting points of a research project which was
carried out by a research team at the University of Bielefeld between 1995 and 1998 (Fromme, Meder &
Vollmer, 2000). We were inspired by the discussions to establish a new sociology of childhood although
its mainstream was somehow anti-pedagogical. I cannot go into the details here (Fromme & Vollmer
1999; Zinnecker 1996), but in our view an educational (or pedagogical) science does not necessarily have
to reduce childhood to an arrangement of protection, preparation and development for "not-yet-grown-
ups." A pedagogue may well acknowledge the children's cultural world as something of its own right - in
the same way as he can and will acknowledge the cultural world of any other (adult) group. However, we
do not believe that this is the whole story. Some of the protagonists of the new sociology of childhood
(e.g. Helga Zeiher in Germany or Glen Elder in the US) have assessed their approach in explicit opposition
to the research concept of socialization. They are exclusively interested in social interactions taking place
among children and would describe and analyze them as expressions of a cultural microworld. In our
view this again is a reductionist concept of childhood, because it presupposes a degree of autonomy
which is unrealistic - and not only with regard to children. In other words: We may accept that children
develop their own cultural patterns and milieus without having to deny a concept like socialization
(Zinnecker, 1996). This, of course, requires a revised concept of socialization. The child may no longer be
seen as mere putty to be worked on by external forces but as someone who actively participates in the
ongoing construction and deconstruction of his social and cultural world.

The scientific "discovery" of children as subjects of their own lives may well be put into the broader
context of a changing society. Debates concerning the transformation of childhood in late modernity
(e.g. Chisholm et al., 1990; Chisholm et al., 1995; Zentrum für Kindheits- und Jugendforschung, 1993)
have referred to complex changes which may be characterized by notions like individualization and
pluralization.

Individualization, in short, "refers to the shift away from traditionally important sociostructural
determinants of identity and behaviour towards more diversified notions of lifestyle" (Livingstone,
d'Haenens & Hasebrink, 2001, 9). The individual has to construct his or her self more or less
independently of traditional structures and backgrounds like religion, socio-economic status, family or
age. In an "individualized" society already children are more or less forced to make their own decisions
and manage their own life-courses. [7] This is an ambivalent task, because it may well overcharge
(young) people. Pluralization mainly refers to the diversification of options in all spheres of society. In
addition, the notion draws attention to the phenomenon of cultural diversity (Welsch, 1988).
Pluralization is closely connected to individualization, because the latter gives space and freedom for
more diversity in lifestyles, beliefs or attitudes. One of the paradoxical aspects of postmodern societies is
the permeation of cultural and economic developments. The plurality of options and cultures is partly a
result of economic impacts on cultural developments, as it goes along with an expansion of
commercialized forms of leisure and media culture.

These considerations were part of the theoretical framework of our study. Changing media cultures are a
part and also an expression of more complex changes in society. On this background we tried to provide
a comprehensive account of children's use of electronic games in their everyday life and of their
attitudes towards these interactive media. We focused on the "computer gaming cultures" of 7 to 14
year old children. The aim was to get a better understanding of how the children used video and
computer games, how they integrated these new media into their leisure activities and peer groups, and
how they valued different aspects of the games. We interviewed the children themselves as experts of
their media culture, and we assumed that the children were capable of providing relevant and valid
information. The approach can be characterized as descriptive and analytical. We did not want to teach
the children anything, but we wanted to learn more about the children's views and ideas. Therefore, we
tried to avoid any normative message or statement when we addressed the children.

Our project design was as follows: 1,111 children filled in a self-completion questionnaire at school.

[8] Younger children got assistance from members of the research team. The main areas covered by the
questionnaire were use of computer games, social context of use, parental mediation, preferred games
and importance of leisure activities. In addition, the children were asked to judge several features and
qualities of computer games which referred to four different dimensions: general acceptance, visual and
acoustic presentation, dramatic involvement and required competency. Some of the socio-economic
data we raised were family and household data (e.g. brothers and sisters, parental situation), occupation
of father and mother, residence, age, gender, attended school type and nationality. About a year after
this main study had been finished (with regard to the collection of data) 21 qualitative interviews
focusing more closely on individual preferences and socio-economic backgrounds were conducted in
order to perhaps identify different styles of computer game usage. In the following I will concentrate on
the first study and present selected findings. They do not pretend to give a complete picture of the
children's gaming culture, but may highlight some basic features.

3 The use of video and computer games

The main distinction we wanted to draw here was between regular gamers, casual gamers and non-
gamers. In a pre-test we tried to develop items which came close to how the children would describe
how often they play computer games. We finally decided to use the following items:

I play video or computer games regularly

- several times a day

- every day

- at least once a week

I play video or computer games casually

- mostly on weekends

- quite seldom, maybe once or twice a month

- once in a while, but then maybe for several hours

- in another way

I don't play video or computer games

- never tried it

- only tried it, but didn't continue

- used to play, but don't play anymore.

More than half of the boys (55.7 percent) and about 29 percent of the girls reported they played
regularly, about 40 percent of the boys and 51 percent of the girls said they played casually, and about 6
percent of the boys and 20 percent of the girls said they did not play computer games (Figure 4 shows
the detailed figures). Only 2.2 percent of our sample never played any video or computer game. The
questionnaire included several questions for those who did not play. The children's answers informed us
that they had

decided not to do so, mostly because they were engaged in other activities (Fromme, Meder & Vollmer,
2000: 167-175). Lacking access to a computer or a console does not seem to be of any relevance here.
On the whole video and computer games seem to be a matter-of-course for most of the children. But
there are significant gender differences here - and in most other areas of the study.[9] Boys play more
often and more regularly than girls do. This indicates different media use styles, and to some extent
different leisure preferences of boys and girls.

Figure 4

A second question referred to the favourite games of the children. In order to reduce the complexity of
the questionnaire we decided to ask the children to name their current favourite video or computer
game (open question). It remained the task of the researchers to decide how they fit into our typology of
computer games (Fromme, Meder & Vollmer, 2000: 35). [10] Altogether 915 children responded, and
most of them were able to tell the name of their favourite game. The others wrote down a short
description or explained it to the interviewers (e.g. car racing, a game where you have to arrange cards).

Boys and girls reported different preferences (Figure 5). The favourite games of the boys were action and
fighting games (33 percent), sport games (21 percent) and platform games (17 percent). The favourite
games of the girls, on the other hand, were platform games (48 percent) and think or puzzle games (20
percent). As the different types of games represent different contents these findings probably reflect
well-known gender differences with regard to relevant interests. We can assume that these gender
differences also are connected to the fact that most of the games neither present active female
characters (Fromme & Gecius, 1997) nor deal with topics that girls usually show interest in - such as
beauty or social relations (Schorb, 1993; Jungwirth, 1993; Kafai, 1996).

Figure 5

4 When do children address themselves to computer games?

Public discourses on computer games and children suggest that these interactive media have gained a
dominant position in the leisure time of children and have begun to substitute more appreciated leisure
activities like reading or sports. Sometimes they are believed to contribute to a general shift towards
more indoor-oriented and individualized leisure activities. A look at the reported frequency of playing
computer games and at the economic success of gaming hardware and software seems to back
suppositions like that. However, some of our findings have put these suppositions into question mark.
We asked, for example, in which situations the children decided to play at the PC or a console. The idea
here was not to analyze the fascinating and motivating forces of computer games, but to have a look at
possible situations in which children would tend to play computer games. The following options were
offered: [11]

- when there is nothing else to do (boring situation)

- when I don't want to do my homework

- in any possible situation (as often as possible)

- when nobody is there to do something else with

- when friends are there who play (computer games) with me

- when the weather is bad and I cannot go outside.

The three possible answers which were most broadly accepted were (Figure 6): when there is nothing
else to do (about 83 percent of the children agreed), when the weather is bad and I cannot go outside
(81 percent of the boys and about 65 percent of the girls agreed) and when nobody is there to do
something else with (76 percent of the boys and 66 percent of the girls agreed). This may indicate that
video and computer games are important media to pass the time between other activities and to fill
somehow empty parts of the day. It seems that children choose this option especially when other
attractive options are not accessible. Our results thus support what Jürgen Fritz et al. have found in their
research: video and computer games tend to be "second choice media" for most of the children (Fritz et
al., 1995).

Figure 6

The answers suggest that computer games not only are relevant in situations where the children are
alone, but also when friends are present. The possibility to play computer games with someone else
appeals to boys more than to girls (74 percent of the boys and 59 percent of the girls agreed). The
children, especially the boys, are interested in integrating the games into their peer activities. In these
contexts the children are able to compare and compete with others, to demonstrate their progress in a
game, to get help or advise on difficult parts of a game or to discuss the games.

About one-third of the children reported they played computer games when they did not want to do
their homework for school. For them the games may be a way of avoiding or postponing a more or less
unpleasant duty. About one-quarter played in any possible situation (boys 30 percent and girls 18
percent). This indicates a use of computer games which is largely independent of specific situations. On
the other hand we have to be cautious not to jump to conclusions. "As often as possible" may
correspond to frequent playing, but the answer may well suit children who, for some reason, are not
able to play very frequently and would perhaps like to play more often. We had a closer look at the
children who reported they played as often as possible: About half of them (53 percent) said they in fact
played every day. This figure is significantly above the average of the whole sample (about 30 percent,
see Figure 4), but it still leaves us with 47 percent who play "as often as possible" and do not play every
day.

5 Computer games and other leisure activities

The question of whether computer games have begun to substitute other leisure time activities has
already been raised (see above). The children's reports about situations where computer or video games
were played did not back a substitution-hypothesis. But in that part of the questionnaire the focus was
not clearly put on leisure situations or activities. In another part of the questionnaire, however, this was
case. We could not raise detailed information about the children’s leisure activities and confined
ourselves to two questions. On the one hand we offered a selection of activities and asked the children
to tell us whether they performed each of them "often," "sometimes" or "never." [12] The following
activities were included:

- listening to music

- playing alone inside (not computer games)

- playing outside together with others

- reading

- watching television or video films

- listening to audio cassettes (tales and stories, not music)

- playing computer or video games

- playing with parent(s) (not computer games)

- playing with brother or sister (not computer games)

- going for sports

- other activities (open question)

On the other hand we asked the children to name their favourite leisure activity (see the next chapter).
With regard to the first question we get a picture which, on the whole, can be regarded as relatively
unspectacular. Compared to more traditional activities computer games seem to be of less importance.
The data presented in Figure 7 show how many percent of the boys and girls reported performing the
named activities "often."

Figure 7

In the "top three" we find the same three activities for boys and for girls: playing outside with others,
listening to music and playing sports. The ranking, however, is different. Listening to music seems to be
of more importance for the girls, going outside for play or sport activities are more often reported by the
boys. [13] When the top list is expanded to four items a significant gender difference shows up: 43
percent of the girls report that they often read in their spare time while the boys rank playing computer
games fourth in their list of leisure activities (Table 1).

Table 1: "Highscores" of reported leisure activities

Boys Girls

1 playing outside with others

71% listening to music 71%

2 going for sports / sport activities

67% playing outside with others

63%

3 listening to music 52% playing sports / sport activities

50%

4 playing video/computer games

38% Reading 43%

A noteworthy finding is that the children on the whole do not regard "watching television or video films"
as something they do "often." Only about one-third of our sample said they did. But "watching television
or video films" and "playing computer games" were the two items which collected the most
"sometimes" answers (more than 60 percent). Studies that have measured time spent watching
television tell us that the number of minutes per day spent watching television clearly tops that of audio
media. For example, the average figures in a European comparative study were 136 minutes (television)
compared to 90 minutes (audio media); the corresponding German figures in the study were 133
minutes and 52 minutes (Beentjes et al. 2001, 96). We assume that television and electronic games -
from the children's perspective - are a matter-of-course, but are not predominant media and do not
represent the core of their leisure activities and interests.

We also carried out a correspondence analysis which related the children's reports on their leisure
activities to their reported frequency of playing computer games (Figure 4). The findings can be
summarized as follows:

Boys who report playing electronic games "daily" more often "play alone inside" (29 percent compared
to an average of 22 percent).

Girls who report playing electronic games "daily" more often "watch television or video films" (45
percent compared to an average of 30 percent). There is no evidence that the use of interactive media
replaces the use of traditional screen media.

Girls who report they "never" engage in "sport activities" also report that they "never" play computer
games (18 percent compared to an average of 9 percent, p<0.001). There is no evidence that boys or
girls who often play electronic games are less engaged in sport activities. On the contrary, there is a
(statistically non-significant) tendency that suggests that daily use of computer games goes along with
sport activities (62 percent to 59 percent).

There is also no evidence that computer games replace reading. At first glance there seems to be such a
statistical correspondence, but indepth analysis reveals that this is due to gender: Girls read more often
than boys, but are less engaged with the new interactive media. Within both gender groups there is no
correspondence between the frequency of playing computer games and reading.
We may conclude that computer games, on the whole, do not replace other leisure activities like sports
or reading. Instead there seem to be different patterns of combining media activities with other (non-
media) activities in children's leisure time. Computer games do play an important role in situations when
children are bored, have to wait or have the impression there is nothing else to do. The relevance of
computer games (and maybe also television) in the everyday life of children may therefore be seen as a
measure for the relevance of individualized "gaps" in the late modern (or postmodern) timetables of
children. Our hypothesis therefore is that media use replaces traditional times of doing nothing or
nothing special (like looking out of the window), rather than any other "activity" (also Hengst, 1988).

6 Favourite leisure activities

The answers to the question of what activities children perform often, sometimes or never represent the
children's (subjective) perception of their leisure time structure. In order to get more information on
their leisure preferences and interests we also included an open-ended question into the questionnaire
asking for the children's favourite activity (or hobby). Altogether 980 children (from 1,111) named their
favourite leisure activity. Most children named different sport activities. The only media-related activity
of some importance was reading, which about 5 percent of the girls named as their favourite activity
(Figure 8). Not all of the reported sport items are selective. Some children wrote down a specific kind of
sport like horse riding, handball or football (soccer). Others referred to sport activities without specifying
the kind of sport they participated in. Several children used the term "fun sport" which we believe is
refers to sports such as climbing, roller skating or sportive games. Zinnecker et al. (1996) have explained
that children nowadays participate more in sport activities than any other (age) group. [14] His concept
of childhood in late modernity being a "sportive childhood" gets some support here. The gender
differences, again, are apparent (and statistically highly significant) for horse riding, football, reading and
handball.

Figure 8

The reported favourite leisure activities also back the above-mentioned hypothesis of playing computer
games - from the children's perspective - being a second-choice activity. They may like it, but they won't
call it their favourite activity.

7 Social contexts of playing computer games

We tried to get some information about the social context of the children's computer gaming cultures
using questions like "Where do you get the information about a 'good' game?" or "Whom do you play
with?" Video and computer games are mainly connected to peer relations, while parents or other adults
only participate in the margins. This seems to be true for boys as well as for girls, but boys, on average,
play more frequently (alone as well as with others) and show a greater interest in games and related
issues.

"Friends" are the most important advisers and mediators in game-related matters (Figure 9). It is friends
who know about new games which might be of interest. There are two relevant means of
communication which may supplement and permeate each other: One option is that the children are
told there is a new game (verbal channel); another, more comprehensive option is that they see and try
a new game at a friend's home. Brothers are also of some importance, especially for girls (35 percent
compared to 23 percent of the boys). [15] The role of parents seems to be ambivalent. The children
apparently do not expect to get helpful information from their parents, especially from their mothers.
Most parents, therefore, are not positively involved in the children's gaming cultures - besides the fact
that they often pay for the games. But parents obviously try to somehow control the children's gaming
activities from the outside, especially with regard to time and with regard to violent games. More than
70 percent of the children reported their parents knew what games they were playing, and about 20
percent had experienced that their parents had forbidden that they play a specific game. So the majority
of parents have a sceptical eye on what is going on, but are mainly practicing a negative form of
intervention, and do not give any positive advice. The children know about this and therefore sometimes
don't tell them what kind of games they are playing (about 25 percent of the children reported this).

Figure 9

Socio-cultural environments do not only consist of (more or less) relevant others, they also consist of
different media. With regard to the problem of being informed about 'good' new computer games the
children also to some degree rely on what they find in other media. About 25 percent of the children for
instance said they were "often" curious about or liked games which had protagonists they knew from
films or television (like Asterix or Hercules). This, by the way, was significantly more important for the
youngest children of our sample (the 7 to 8 year-olds). [16] Commercials are quite successful in drawing
the children's attention to new games, too. More than 18 percent of the children (girls 16.7 percent and
boys 21.7 percent) said this was a significant source of information for them. It seems noteworthy that
the figures for these two items clearly surpass those for the family related items "mother", "sister" and
"father". For the boys "tests in gamers' magazines" represent a third relevant option which refers to
other media (22 percent), but the magazines obviously do not appeal to most of the girls (6 percent).
[17]

What the children reported about "whom they play video and computer games together with" (Figure
10) leads us to a similar conclusion: The games are more often and more closely connected to peer
relations than to family life. Parents are more or less external observers. Only a few seem to participate
in their children's gaming culture. This marks an important difference from other media like television or
books which are much more integrated into family interaction across generation borders (Lange &
Lüscher, 1998). In addition, we learn from this last figure that the children's main reference group is the
peer group

of the same gender. Boys prefer to play with other boys, and girls most often play together with other
girls. There seems to be one exception from the tendency to stay with members of the same gender:
brothers or sisters.

Figure 10

8 Conclusion
There is no evidence that suggests we need to be alarmed about children's gaming cultures. Even
children who are quite engaged, in terms of frequency and general interest in playing computer games,
apparently do not give up other activities and interests like outdoor and sport activities. Our findings also
do not suggest that electronic gaming leads to social isolation. In most cases it seems to be fully
integrated into existing peer relationships. To be together with friends for the great majority of children
remains the favoured leisure activity.. The interactive qualities of computer technology are quite
attractive in situations when children are alone, however.

In most cases, arents or other adults do not participate in children's gaming cultures in an active (or
interactive) way. Playing computer games is not - maybe not yet - a common project of the family. On the
one hand this may be regarded as something that should be accepted or even supported, because
children want and need to have their own spheres. On the other hand it raises the question of whether
or not media education (in a wide sense) should restrict itself to controlling media use from the outside.
In my view the pedagogical task remains to actively and also critically accompany the children's process
of growing up and developing their relationship to the cultural world. And the task remains to secure a
pluralitity of resources and challenges they can use to develop their cognitive, social, and physical
abilities.

References

Beentjes, Johannes W.J. et al.: Children's Use of Different Media: For How Long and Why? In S.
Livingstone & M. Bovill (Eds.), Children and Their Changing Media Environment. A European Comparative
Study. Mahwah, NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001. 85-111

Chisholm, Lynne et al. (Eds.): Childhood, youth and social change: A comparative perspective. London &
New York: Falmer, 1990

Chisholm, Lynne et al. (Eds.): Growing up in

Europe: Contemporary horizons in childhood and youth studies. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995

Elder, Glen H.: Time, Human Agency, and Social Change: Perspectives on the life course. In Social
Psychology Quarterly 57, 1994, 1. 4-15.

Feierabend, Sabine & Walter Klingler: JIM 2000. Jugend, Information, (Multi-) Media. Basisuntersuchung
zum Medienumgang 12- bis 19jähriger in Deutschland. [Youth, information, (multi-) media. Basic
investigation of the media use of 12 to 19 year-olds in Germany.] Baden-Baden: Medienpädagogischer
Forschungsverbund Südwest, 2000

Feierabend, Sabine & Walter Klingler: Kinder und Medien 2000: PC/Internet gewinnen an Bedeutung.
[Children and Media 2000. PC/Internet gain importance.] In media perspektiven 7/2001. 345-357

Fritz, Jürgen et al.: Faszination, Nutzung und Wirkung von Bildschirmspielen. Ergebnisse und offene
Fragen . [Fascination, use, and effects of electronic games. Results and open questions.] In J. Fritz (Ed.),
Warum Computerspiele faszinieren. [Why are computer games faszinating?] Weinheim & München:
Juventa, 1995. 238-243

Fromme, Johannes: Thesen zur Erziehungskrise in einer durch Medien geprägten Gesellschaft . [Theses
on the crisis of education in a media society.] In Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und
Jugend (Ed. ), Mehr Chancen für Kinder und Jugendliche.

Veranstaltungsdokumentation, Band 1. [More chances for children and youth. Proceedings, Volume 1.]
Münster: Votum, 2000. 82-97

Fromme, Johannes: Der Einfluss der Neuen Medien: das Misstrauen der Erwachsenen und die medialen
Praxen der Kinder. [The impact of new media: the distrust of adults and the media practices of children.]
In M.K.W. Schweer (Ed.),

Der Einfluss der Medien. Vertrauen und soziale Verantwortung. [The impact of media. Trust and social
responsibility.] Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 2001. 157-181

Fromme, Johannes & Melanie Gecius:

Geschlechtsrollen in Video- und Computerspielen. [Sex roles in video and computer games.] In J. Fritz &
W. Fehr (Eds.), Handbuch Medien: Computerspiele. [Handbook media: computer games.]. Bonn:
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 1997. 121-135

Fromme, Johannes, Norbert Meder & Nikolaus Vollmer: Computerspiele in der Kinderkultur. [Computer
games in the children's culture.] Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 2000

Fromme, Johannes & Nikolaus Vollmer:

Mediensozialisation oder Medienkultur? Lernprozesse im Umgang mit interaktiven Medien. [Media

socialization or media culture? Learning processes with interactive media.] In J. Fromme et al. (Eds.),
Selbstsozialisation, Kinderkultur und Mediennutzung. [Self-socialisation, children's culture and media
use.] Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 1999. 200-224

Greenfield, Patricia M.: Mind and Media: The effects of television, video games and computers.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984 [German: Kinder und neue Medien. Die Wirkung von
Fernsehen, Videospielen und Computern . München & Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union, 1987]

Greenfield, Patricia M.: The Cultural Evolution of IQ. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The Rising Curve. Long-Term-
Gains in IQ and related Measures . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1998. 81-123

Greenfield, Patricia M. & Rodney R. Cocking (Eds.):

Interacting With Video. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1996

Greenfield, Patricia M. et. al.: Action Video Games and Informal Education: Effects on Strategies for
Dividing Visual Attention. In P.M. Greenfield & R.R. Cocking (Eds.), Interacting With Video . Norwood, NJ:
Ablex, 1996. 187-205
Hengst, Heinz: Computer und Computerspiele im Alltag von Kindern und Jugendlichen. [Computers and
computer games in the daily lives of children and youth.] In M. Radde, U. Sander & R. Vollbrecht (Eds.),
Jugendzeit - Medienzeit. [Time of youth - time of media.] Weinheim & München: Juventa, 1988. 136-153

Honig, Michael-Sebastian, Hans Rudolf Leu & Ursula Nissen: Kindheit als Sozialisationsphase und als
kulturelles Muster. [Childhood as stage of socialization and as cultural pattern.] In M.-S. Honig, H.R. Leu &
U. Nissen (Eds.), Kinder und Kindheit. [Children and childhood.] Weinheim & München: Juventa, 1996. 9-
29

Jungwirth, Helga: Game-Boys aber kaum Game-Girls ... [Game-Boys but hardly Game-Girls ...] In J. Maaß
& Ch. Schartner (Eds.), Computerspiele - (Un)heile Welt der Jugendlichen? [Computer games - (Un)safe
world of the youth?] München & Wien: Profil, 1993. 53-64

Kafai, Yasmin B.: Gender Differences in Children's Constructions of Video Games. In P.M. Greenfield &
R.R. Cocking (Eds.), Interacting With Video. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1996. 39-66

Lange, Andreas & Kurt Lüscher: Kinder und ihre Medienökologie. [Children and their media ecology.]
München: Kopäd, 1998

Leu, Hans Rudolf: Wie Kinder mit Computern umgehen. Studie zur Entzauberung einer neuen
Technologie. [How children use computers. Study to dewitch a new technology.] München: Deutsches
Jugendinstitut, 1993.

Livingstone, Sonia, Leen d'Haenens & Uwe Hasebrink: Childhood in Europe: Contexts for Comparison. In
S. Livingstone & M. Bovill (Eds.),

Children and Their Changing Media Environment. A European Comparative Study. Mahwah, NJ &
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001. 3-30

Prout, Alan & Allison James: A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? Provenance, promise and
problems. In A. James & A. Prout (Eds.),

Constructing and reconstructing childhood. London & New York: Falmer, 1990. 7-34

Ritzer, George: The McDonaldization of society: An investigation into the changing character of
contemporary social life. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge, 1993

Schäffer, Burkhard: Generation, Mediennutzungskultur und (Weiter)Bildung. Zur empirischen

Rekonstruktion medial vermittelter Generationsverhältnisse. [Generation, media use culture, and
(further) education. An empirical reconstruction of how media mediate generational relationships.] In R.
Bohnsack & W. Marotzki (Eds.), Biographieforschung und Kulturanalyze. [Biographical research and
cultural analysis.] Opladen: Leske + Budrich. 21-50.

Schorb, Bernd: Eine Welt möglicher Vorbilder - Die Figuren in den Köpfen der Kinder. [A world full of
models - The figures in the heads of the children.] In H. Theunert (Ed.), - Einsame Wölfe" und - schöne
Bräute". Was Mädchen und Jungen in Cartoons finden. ["Lonesome wolves" and "beautiful brides".
What girls and boys find in cartoons.] München: Bayrische Landeszentrale für neue Medien, 1993. 63-
105

Shantz, Carolyn U. & Willard W. Hartup (Eds.):

Conflict in child and adolescent development . Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press, 1992

Weber, Max: The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Transl. by Talcott Parsons. Introd. by
Anthony Giddens. London: Unwin Paperbacks, 1985

Welsch, Wolfgang: Unsere postmoderne Moderne. [Our postmodern modernity.] Weinheim: VCH, Acta
Humaniora, 1988. 2nd corrected edition

Wittpoth, Juergen: Gute Medien, schlechte Medien? Ästhetische Einstellung, Milieu und Generation .
[Good media, bad media? Aesthetic attitude, background, and generation.] In I. Gogolin & D. Lenzen
(Eds.), Medien-Generation. [Media generation.] Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 1999. 209-222

Zeiher, Helga: Die Entdeckung der Kindheit in der Soziologie. [The discovery of childhood in sociology.] In
H. Sahner & St. Schwendter (Eds.),

Gesellschaften im Umbruch. Abstract-Band zum 27. Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie.
[Societies in radical change. Abstract volume of the 27th conference of the German Association for
Sociology.] Halle a.d. Saale, 1995

Zentrum für Kindheits- und Jugendforschung (Ed.): Wandlungen der Kindheit. [Transformations of
childhood.] Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 1993

Zinnecker, Jürgen: Soziologie der Kindheit oder Sozialisation des Kindes? - Überlegungen zu einem
aktuellen Paradigmenstreit. [Sociology of childhood or socialization of the child? - Considerations on a
current paradigm dispute.] In M.-S. Honig, H.R. Leu & U. Nissen (Eds.), Kinder und Kindheit. [Children and
childhood.] Weinheim & München: Juventa, 1996. 31-54

Zinnecker, Jürgen et al.: Kindheit in Deutschland. Aktueller Survey über Kinder und ihre Eltern. [Children
in Germany. A present-day survey on children and their parents.] Weinheim & München: Juventa, 1996.

Endnotes

[1] Consoles like the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) (released in 1985) and the Sega Master
System (SMS) (released in 1986), and portable video game systems like Nintendo's

Game Boy (first released in 1989) not only revived the video game market after its crash in 1984, but
these new systems also on a broader scale attracted younger players.

[2] She has continued to do research on this issue. In a more recent book (Greenfield & Cocking, 1996) a
collection of articles has been published which try to document the role of interactive video in the
cognitive and emotional learning of children and youth. One of Greenfield's conclusions can be
summarized as follows: The introduction and diffusion of computers leads to a rise of what may be called
"visual intelligence." As modern video games demand special visual skills they provide informal
education for (other) occupations that demand such skills (Greenfield, 1998; also: Greenfield et al.,
1996).

[3] The data are based on the whole sample. This means that nonusers are included. The percentage of
users of electronic games in this study is reported to sum up to 74. The corresponding figures for the
other media mentioned here are: 60% for the PC (not for games), 32% for the internet, and 99% for
television (Beentjes et al., 1996, 92).

[4] This is not a new finding, however. Similar results have been reported from earlier studies (e.g. Leu,
1993), but it seems noteworthy that in the past one or two decades the most popular way to use the
computer - at least for children and youth - has been to play computer games, because this implies that
from the very beginning they got (and get) to know the computer as a toy.

[5] It is called 'Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest' which could be translated as 'Media

and Education Research Association South West' (cf Klingler & Feierabend, 2000).

[6] Jürgen Zinnecker reports that he attended the annual conference of the ASA in Miami, Florida, in
August 1993, where the newly founded section "Sociology of Childhood" presented itself to the scientific
community for the first time (Zinnecker, 1996: 32). The current list of sections of the ASA (cf
www.asanet.org), however, does not contain this section any more, but a section called "Sociology of
Children and Youth". A similar development could be observed in the German Asociation for Sociology
(DGS). In 1995 a working group "Soziologie der Kindheit" [Sociology of Childhood] was founded, in order
to overcome psychological and pedagogical concepts of childhood. The new sociology of childhood no
longer wanted to seize childhood as an arrangement of protection, preparation and socialization, but as
a social (and cultural) form of life (Zinnecker, 1996, 33). The German working group in the meantime has
established a section "Soziologie der Kindheit" in the DGS which exists independently from the section
"Jugendsoziologie" [Sociology of Youth] (cf

www.soziologie.de/sektionen/index.htm).

[7] Individualization has do be understood as a relative concept. It draws attention to processes and
tendencies towards relatively more individualized forms of life. With regard to children we may on the
one hand describe childhood in late modernity as being relatively individualized altogether. On the other
hand we may find different degrees of autonomy (or individualization) in different sections of children's
lives. Leisure and media activities obviously belong to the more 'individualized' sections of the children's
lives (Zinnecker et al., 1993: 41).

[8] The questionnaire data were collected in 1996. In the meantime, due to a still dynamic technical and
economic development, we have different hardware and software for games. But we assume that some
of the main structural features of the children's gaming culture are still up to date.

[9] One of the surprising results was that we did not find any differences depending on residence (e.g.
rural or urban) or on parents' occupation (e.g. academic profession or industrial worker).
[10] We decided to deviate from customary typologies in the following respects: 'platform games' (like
most of the Super Mario video games) were taken as a group of its own instead of integrating it into the
action-genre or the adventure-genre. In addition, we took sport games and racing games as separate
types each instead of adding them to the more diffuse simulation-genre.

[11] In the retrospect we believe that further options could have been added. The items mainly decribe
situations in terms of absence (of better choices).

[12] In a pre-test we tried different scales. At first, we asked children how many minutes they would
spend per day on selected activities. This task proved to be too abstract for them. In a second step, we
tested a questionnaire which for most of the questions offered five possible answers. With regard to
their leisure acitivities they had to select between "very often", "often", "sometimes", "seldom" and
"never". One problem with this questionnaire came out to be that it took the children too much time to
answer all the questions. Another problem was that the selectivity between the offered choices wasn’t
big enough.

[13] Our instrument cannot account for multi-tasking. Of course some of the activities may be combined,
e.g. listening to music and playing alone inside. We decided to renounce a broader and deeper approach
here. On the one hand, we did not want to reconstruct activity patterns, but the children's reflexive
behaviour towards their own computer gaming culture. For pragmatic reasons we had to restrict
ourselves and the number of questions we could include into our instrument. Within this given frame,
we eventually wanted to keep some space for a section devoted to the question how the children valued
different aspects of computer games - a question which I cannot deal with in this paper (cf Fromme,
Meder & Vollmer, 2000: 73-127).

[14] „Kinder treten damit als Altersgruppe in die Fußstapfen der (männlichen) Adoleszenz. Unter
biographischer Perspektive läßt sich von einer Vorverlagerung und 'Verfrühung' sportiver Partizipation
bei heutigen Kindern sprechen" (Zinnecker et al., 1996: 107). ["Children as an age group thus step into
the footprints of (male) adolescence. From a biographical perspective current young people's sportive
participation begins earlier and reaches its climax earlier."]

[15] The figures for this item are based only on children who do have a brother and/or sister.

[16] In this age group friends seem to be of less importance. Only 29% of the 7 and 8 year-olds reported
they "often" got their information or advice from friends, the corresponding figure for the 13 and 14
year-olds being about 50%.

[17] In the context of our research we had a closer look at a selection of popolar game magazines. Out
impression was that they were male oriented in several respects (e.g. no female editors, hardly any
female members in the editorial staff, frequent use of 'insider' notions, texts and pictures often
emphasized 'action' or violence). We therefore believe it is no coincidence that female children are not
very interested in these magazines.

[To the top of the page]

© 2001 - 2004 Game Studies

Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the journal, except for the right to republish
in printed paper publications, which belongs to the authors, but with first publication rights granted to
the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper
attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.

Aggressive Behavior Linked to Players’ Experiences

The disturbing imagery or violent storylines of videos games like World of Warcraft or Grand Theft Auto
are often accused of fostering feelings of aggression in players. But a new study shows hostile behavior is
linked to gamers’ experiences of failure and frustration during play—not to a game’s violent content.

The study is the first to look at the player’s psychological experience with video games instead of
focusing solely on its content. Researchers found that failure to master a game and its controls led to
frustration and aggression, regardless of whether the game was violent or not. The findings of the study
were published online in the March edition of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology .

“Any player who has thrown down a remote control after losing an electronic game can relate to the
intense feelings or anger failure can cause,” explains lead author Andrew Przybylski, a researcher at the
Oxford Internet Institute at Oxford University, who said such frustration is commonly known among
gamers as “rage-quitting.”

That experience is not unique to gaming, says coauthor Richard Ryan, a motivational psychologist at the
University of Rochester. For example, in sports, players may lose a game as a result of a bad call. “When
people feel they have no control over the outcome of a game, that leads to aggression,” he explains. “We
saw that in our experiments. If you press someone’s competencies, they’ll become more aggressive, and
our effects held up whether the games were violent or not.”

To tease out which aspects of the gaming experience lead to aggressive feelings, the researchers
manipulated the interface, controls, and degree of difficulty in custom-designed video games across six
lab experiments. Nearly 600 college-aged participants were tasked with playing the games—many of
which included violent and nonviolent variations—and then were tested for aggressive thoughts,
feelings, or behaviors.

In one experiment, undergraduates held their hand in a bowl of painfully cold water for 25 seconds. They
were led to believe that the length of time was determined by a prior participant, but in fact, all
participants were assigned the same duration. Next, participants were randomly asked to play either a
simple or challenging version of Tetris, after which they were asked to assign the amount of time a future
participant would have to leave their hand in the chilled water. Players who experienced the difficult
Tetris game assigned on average 10 seconds more of chilled water pain to subsequent players than those
who played the easy version.
Across the experiments, researchers found it was not the narrative or imagery, but the lack of mastery of
the game’s controls and the degree of difficulty players had completing the game that led to frustration.
The study demonstrated that aggression is a negative side effect of the frustration felt while playing the
video game. “When the experience involves threats to our ego, it can cause us to be hostile and mean to
others,” Ryan explains.

The researchers also surveyed 300 avid gamers to identify how real world gamers might experience the
same phenomena. When asked about pre- and post-game feelings, gamers reported that their inability
to master a game or its controls caused feelings of frustration and affected their sense of enjoyment in
the experience.

Edward L. Deci, professor of psychology and Gown Professor in the Social Sciences at the University of
Rochester, and C. Scott Rigby, president of Immersyve, a consortium of researchers and interactive
development professionals that study motivation and sustained engagement, also contributed to the
paper.

The researchers say that the findings offer an important contribution to the debate about the effects of
violent video games. Ryan says that many critics of video games have been premature in their
conclusions that violent video games cause aggression. “It’s a complicated area, and people have
simplistic views,” he explains, noting that nonviolent games like Tetris or Candy Crush can leave players
as, if not more, aggressive than games with violence, if they’re poorly designed or too difficult.

Tags: Andrew Przybylski, research finding,

Richard Ryan , video games, violence

Category: Society & Culture

Also of note is that people who play games on consoles are starting to play games on their phones and
tablets more, too. Half of Nielsen's console respondents for the 2013 study said they also played games
on mobile devices; that's up from 46% in 2012 and 35% in 2011.

The good news is that we've finally gotten our priorities in order.

According to Nielsen , the average U.S. gamer age 13 or older spent 6.3 hours a week playing video
games during 2013. That's up from 5.6 hours in 2012, which was up from 5.1 hours in 2011. If you like
fun, we're trending in the right direction.

As for which systems were used most often in 2013, seventh-generation consoles (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii)
beat PCs by a percentage point – 34% to 33% – while mobile phones took a distant third at 10%. Tablets
followed at 9%, dedicated gaming handhelds at 6%, eighth-gen consoles at 4% and "other" at 4%.

WORLD This Is What a Nationwide Protest Against the Russian Government Looks Like
NEXT UP

MORE COVERAGE

SOCIAL MEDIA There’s a New Anti-Semitic Message on Social Media Every 83 Seconds: Study

REPUBLICANS Senate Votes to Undo Obama-Era Rules Protecting Internet Users' Private Data

SOCIAL MEDIA Group Chats Will be Way Easier on Facebook Now

HACKING Hacking Myself Is the Most Surprisingly Humiliating Decision I've Ever Made

AVIATION Why the U.S. Is Cracking Down on Gadgets In Airplane Cabins

TELEVISION How to Watch 2,917 Web TV Shows in One Place

VIDEO GAMES Nintendo Says It's Found the Switch Joy-Con Issue and Is Fixing It

GADGETS How Samsung's New Galaxy Tablet Compares to the iPad Pro

Seeking a fresh strategy for growth after a prolonged bull market? Legg Mason-Leader in SMAs

The reason China won’t exert economic pressure on North KoreaSouth China Morning Post

Before Applying For A Credit Card, Check If You Pre-Qualify Citi

Principle #6: Staying Invested Matters J.P. Morgan Funds

SPONSORED FINANCIAL CONTENT

United Wouldn't Let 2 Girls on a Plane Because It Apparently Has a Leggings Ban

Read President Trump's Interview With TIME on Truth and Falsehoods

The Fell In Love on the Set of Orange Is the New Black. And Now They're Married

Vote Now: Who Should Be on the 2017 TIME 100?

Beauty and the Beast Has Another Enchanting Weekend at the Box Office
MOST POPULAR STORIES

BUSINESS'Fearless Girl' of Wall Street Faces Uncertain Future

POLITICS President Trump Hits the Golf Course For the 13th Time

ENTERTAINMENT The Fell In Love on the Set of Orange Is the New Black. And Now They're Married

BUSINESSUnited Wouldn't Let 2 Girls on a Plane Because It Apparently Has a Leggings Ban

ENTERTAINMENT Beauty and the Beast Has Another Enchanting Weekend at the Box Office

POLITICS First, He Blamed Them. Now President Trump Wants Democrats Support for Health Care
Reform

WORLD British Official: WhatsApp Can't Be a 'Secret Place for Terrorists'

ENTERTAINMENT Antonio Banderas: My Heart Attack Wasn't That 'Dramatic'

WORLD Russian Opposition Leader Arrested Amid Mass Protest in Moscow

U.S. What to Know About the Cincinnati Nightclub Shooting

MORE FROM TIME.COM

VIDEO GAMES

Here's How Much Time People Spend Playing Video Games

Doug Aamoth